Would you step up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
297
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Carer
I was just pondering the way the world is heading and I feel like we are coming to the edge of oblivion and we are in drastic need of change. So if someone said that they were willing to fight for change no matter how much it costs would you follow them. I am finding that the American government is far too corrupt and they are abusing their power far too much and going against the constitution in certain areas. The thing is our country was founded on questioning authority so if some rose up to try to change the government and start anew would you follow their leadership?
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
No, I wouldn't follow someone who had a blazing ambition to change the world no matter the cost. The only thing worse than a lot of people with a lot of power, is one person with all the power.

At least in today's society we allow there to be a conflict of interest, debate and argument, so that all sides have the chance to consider the best outcome to any given circumstance. If it were just one person making all the decisions, things would get incredibly slanted in ideals, biased and bigoted. And I'm sure we can all recollect a time in the past where this has happened.

Need I say more?
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
Depends on the cause really. To be honest, I'm not sure we're there yet...

One thing that scares me though is that taking down the government would be considered terrorism, so all these anti-terrorism things that we are glad exist today might well be the things that keep a corrupt government in power tomorrow.

So funnily enough, the only reason why I'd want to stop the government is because they seem to be taking steps towards making it impossible for citizens to stop the government.

You guys have the 2nd Amendment (the gun one right?)... I really think you missed a trick there. In the gun thread, people say that the reasoning (or one of the reasons) for this amendment was because one days guns may be necessary for stopping a corrupt government. Personally I think they messed up here, since they made the dangerous assumption that guns (or arms, or whatever the thing says) would be enough to stop a corrupt government.
I'd quite like one of the bill of rights (for this country too) to be about the majority of the population always being able to stop the government, if they were to choose too.

'Fighting for change'... what change exactly? If the people who want to start the government anew are worse than the current government... then no way.

I'd rather fight with words though.
 

ballucanb

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,992
Role
Private
Dave there were lots of guys who were like you in the sixities, they all wanted change, well nothing changed much then and nothing will change things now.

Even the guys who wanted change, flipped, and became part of the corperate minds they were trying to change, It's all about money, they who have it want to keep it, and they who want it keep trying to get it, no one is out for the good of the country or the planet, there out there for the bottom line.
 

doubledbbw

Est. Contributor
Messages
539
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I vote too. And will on Nov 4th. I defended that right for 20 years and will exercise my constitutional right in every election. Both general and primary.
 

starshine

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,277
Role
Private
I do, I vote. = )
That's great.

Its funny, to see people talk about how they want to change things, and how hard it will be. Really - something as SIMPLE as voting changes things. That's one more person, one more say, and it makes a big difference.
 

Takkun

Est. Contributor
Messages
478
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer
And that's not to say I would be against a larger undertaking. I sort of WANT to be arrested for being in some kind of protest.

But the truth of it is, most things in my life will not affect the government. I live in Oklahoma, a predominantly Republican state. When I vote for a Democrat, they usually do not win. But I try to get my friends to vote, and if they don't, I tell them to shove it when they complain.
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
And that's not to say I would be against a larger undertaking. I sort of WANT to be arrested for being in some kind of protest.

But the truth of it is, most things in my life will not affect the government. I live in Oklahoma, a predominantly Republican state. When I vote for a Democrat, they usually do not win. But I try to get my friends to vote, and if they don't, I tell them to shove it when they complain.
Living in country where voting is compulsory, I think everyone here has a right to question and complain about current leadership. Which is probably why I'm a proponent for compulsory voting, it's more representative of all the beliefs of the country. If someone is too lazy, or too oblique to care about who makes decisions that change the whole nation, then they really don't have a right to complain about it.

Then again, for some strange reason, I just don't see compulsory voting working well in the US.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
Living in country where voting is compulsory, I think everyone here has a right to question and complain about current leadership. Which is probably why I'm a proponent for compulsory voting, it's more representative of all the beliefs of the country. If someone is too lazy, or too oblique to care about who makes decisions that change the whole nation, then they really don't have a right to complain about it.

Then again, for some strange reason, I just don't see compulsory voting working well in the US.
I never quite understood compulsory voting. Isn't is illiberal? Shouldn't you be free to not participate in government? I just doesn't seem to match what a Liberal Democracy should do.
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
I never quite understood compulsory voting. Isn't is illiberal? Shouldn't you be free to not participate in government? I just doesn't seem to match what a Liberal Democracy should do.
Well, I'm not a very political person, so I'll let someone else be the judge of that.

I will, however, stand by the opinion that if you aren't going to vote, then you don't have a right to complain about the leadership.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
Well, I'm not a very political person, so I'll let someone else be the judge of that.

I will, however, stand by the opinion that if you aren't going to vote, then you don't have a right to complain about the leadership.
I agree. It makes me angry when I see someone at a protest going OMG BUSH NAZI OMG, and when I ask them who they voted for, they reveal that they didn't vote.
 

Takkun

Est. Contributor
Messages
478
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer
I think compulsory voting is wrong based on that telling people they HAVE to do something, to me, is wrong. Not voting is not directly hurting anyone, and would take away a freedom of choice. I think if we MADE people vote, it would make a mockery of the system. People would vote for the first candidate on the ballot, or, even worse, the person who's name they saw most on TV.

My idea was too make people re-newing their license register to vote. You can register right in most DMV and tag agencies anyway. I would HOPE it would have a trickle down affect.

As far as what needs to be changed, I think health care and education are the biggest.
I think high school should be geared toward helping kids be ready for college, because I wasn't. Even though a smaller percent go to college than don't do, I honestly think public high schools are too easy. You "learn" how to suck up facts and regurgitate, then delete them for the next test. Yes, we need more/ better teachers for this to happen, so PAY THEM MORE!

As for health stuff, we need a national health plan. NOT mandatory, and you should be able to have either JUST the public, just private, or a mix of both. Families that are right above the line to get Medicare cannot afford private insurance. I know, both my mother and I are living through this right now. I think the cut-off amount show be raised, and everyone get a little less. But also we need more money going to this. I know people hate when I say this, but RAISE TAXES. Yes, I said it. NOT on things like essential groceries, or clothes. But on high end electronics, gadgets, and luxury items.

Yeah, lots of people dis-like what I call the Robin Hood plan, but come on. Anyone buying a fridge that costs $10,000, or a Porsche, can handle another 3 cents in tax.
Especially if it means helping a family of 3 or 4 that makes 30k a year have cheaper insurance. Not FREE, but cheaper.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
I
My idea was too make people re-newing their license register to vote. You can register right in most DMV and tag agencies anyway. I would HOPE it would have a trickle down affect.
They already have that. It's called the Motor Voter law.

As far as what needs to be changed, I think health care and education are the biggest.
I think high school should be geared toward helping kids be ready for college, because I wasn't. Even though a smaller percent go to college than don't do, I honestly think public high schools are too easy. You "learn" how to suck up facts and regurgitate, then delete them for the next test. Yes, we need more/ better teachers for this to happen, so PAY THEM MORE!
The problem is the schools are run by the Government, following the Prussian model to ensure obedience. Schools intentionally don't teach students to think critically.

Paying teachers more won't make people smarter. The issue is the bad teachers are not doing a good job at teaching the learning foundation, and it restrains students throughout their school career. Fire the bad teachers, give raises to the good teachers, and teach students to think for themselves. The Belgian model is something that I think the US should consider.

As for health stuff, we need a national health plan. NOT mandatory, and you should be able to have either JUST the public, just private, or a mix of both. Families that are right above the line to get Medicare cannot afford private insurance. I know, both my mother and I are living through this right now. I think the cut-off amount show be raised, and everyone get a little less. But also we need more money going to this. I know people hate when I say this, but RAISE TAXES. Yes, I said it. NOT on things like essential groceries, or clothes. But on high end electronics, gadgets, and luxury items.
The problem is with Insurance. We pay for all the administrators and billing people who we pay for our insurance. I say we get rid of all health insurance except catastrophic coverage. The only reason healthcare costs so much is because the Doctors, hospitals, and clinics know they can get whatever they charge. If we get rid of insurance, the blank check is gone. Costs would come down due to market forces

Yeah, lots of people dis-like what I call the Robin Hood plan, but come on. Anyone buying a fridge that costs $10,000, or a Porsche, can handle another 3 cents in tax.
Especially if it means helping a family of 3 or 4 that makes 30k a year have cheaper insurance. Not FREE, but cheaper.
Why does one family have the obligation to subsidize the healthcare of another? Are we not entitled to the fruits of our own labor without the government demanding we subsidize others?
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
Paying teachers more won't make people smarter. The issue is the bad teachers are not doing a good job at teaching the learning foundation, and it restrains students throughout their school career. Fire the bad teachers, give raises to the good teachers...
I think the idea is that if you pay teachers more, more people will want to be teachers so when hiring them we don't have to settle for what we can get, we can choose the pick of the crop.
"Fire the bad teachers, give raises to the good teachers" is paying teachers more! If you fire the bad ones, and then pay the good (remaining) ones more...
 

IncompleteDude

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,083
Role
Private
If I was to stand up and make a drastic change in the US, it would be to stop them from questioning authority all the time like it is some evil thing. Instead, I would have them take responsibility for their figures of authority, because the government is made by the people, so the people should co-operate with it and be part of it. That way they can shape it into something they can be confident in.

Instead, what I see is Americans trying to abandon and reject their government. This isolates politicians, and in doing so allows corruption to grow within them unopposed. You can't pretend that it's not your fault that your government sucks, because it's the people that make it, and you are part of the people of the USA. Instead you've got to realize that as a citizen and a voter, you are part of the government.

The problem is with Insurance. We pay for all the administrators and billing people who we pay for our insurance. I say we get rid of all health insurance except catastrophic coverage. The only reason healthcare costs so much is because the Doctors, hospitals, and clinics know they can get whatever they charge. If we get rid of insurance, the blank check is gone. Costs would come down due to market forces
Actually, health care is universally cheaper in countries with universal health care, because the government sets a hard line on what doctors are allowed to charge for their services.

Next, without insurance, costs wouldn't change, doctors would just refuse to treat even more people, and more people would avoid treatment for the short term gain of more money in the pocket. Also, there is no point to only covering exceptional health care costs, because the basic costs will equal the costs of your current premiums anyways. All it does is make it easier for insurance companies to screw you with high premiums for plans you are even more unlikely to make claims on, and when you do make a claim, gives them more time to figure out how to get out of paying. On top of that, by not covering basic health care, you only encourage people to avoid taking care of themselves and preventative medicine to save a few bucks, leading to a much greater rate of catastrophic conditions. So even if catastrophic care was publicly run, it would still cost more.

Now, I supposed your 140 IQ genius is smart enough to know that $1000 in your pocket now is not worth $100,000 in catastrophic care later. However, I do believe that the average person is not always that smart, and usually too busy to think about it. I would rather have the government making the obvious, easy and smart decisions that I am too busy to make, leaving me to think about the hard questions facing society. It's better for all of us not to have bankrupt and sick people wandering the streets causing crime. We already know that healthy people and preventative medicine is universally good and cheaper for the society, so there is no need to force every individual to figure that out all over again every generation. So we just roll the costs into our taxes, and forget about it. It's a solved problem.

For example, sewage systems have an unquestionable benefit to all of society, as it reduces disease and smell. We don't force every individual to build their own personal sewage system, at least is cities, because it's a solved problem. It's better for society, and hence everyone in that society, to have them. So we roll the cost into our taxes and forget about it. After all, you wouldn't want your neighbour leaving raw sewage on his lawn. Neither would I want my neighbour going broke because of health care costs, then mugging me in the street to survive, because I'm rich enough to pay for my health care, but not rich enough to pay for a personal security entourage.

Sure the rich and genius types end up paying more, but the government isn't their personal servant. They exist to serve all of society, including the poor and foolish people who either can't take care of or don't care about their health. The government doesn't care that one man pays a lot for health care that ends up serving other people. They care about the big picture. That having that rich man pay for others enables a lower overall cost of health care for everyone and greater economic output thanks to a healthier society, which in fact makes that rich man even richer. Paying for people's health care is an investment in your society that offers great returns.
 
Last edited:

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
I think the idea is that if you pay teachers more, more people will want to be teachers so when hiring them we don't have to settle for what we can get, we can choose the pick of the crop.
"Fire the bad teachers, give raises to the good teachers" is paying teachers more! If you fire the bad ones, and then pay the good (remaining) ones more...
You're being intentionally obtuse. People seem to think that giving teachers money is going to magically make kids better students. There is nothing wrong with giving a raise to people that excel in their jobs. Teachers should be held to the same standard that everyone else is. If you're incompetent, you get fired. If you're competent, you have a steady job. If you excel, you make more money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top